Bolshevism is not Russian — it is essentially non-national ;
its leaders belong almost entirely to the race that lost its
country and its nationhood long ago. In April, 1918, the
Bolshevist "Government," including 384 "Peoples' Commis-
saries," was represented by 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15
Chinamen, 22 Armenians and Georgians, and more than 300
Jews. Of the last 264 had come to Russia from the United
States during the "Revolution."

As a result of the trial Zundel is found guilty and Leuchter's forensic reports are found to be unscientific and inaccurate, filled with a multitude of things he never even evaluated and that the ones he evaluated were tested in the wrong way. The Dutch concentration camp historian, Robert Jan Van Pelt, is the real champion of truth in this film as he goes into detail of how ludicrous Leuchter's so-called research was and how evil it was for him to go into a place like Auschwitz and into a crematorium like the infamous number two, where 500,000 Holocaust victims died and then have the gall to say that there was no gas chambers there. It is evident he didn't know how to test for cyanide, being that it can only be tested from samples taken on the surface of the stones, since the gas can't penetrate further. Leuchter's tests were diluted too much by going into the depths of the walls, where it would be impossible to find traces of the gas. The historian also points out how Leuchter never checked the camp records, which clearly showed documentations of gas chambers and ventilation
(Bron: Zundel proces)

Quote:

Although Leuchter is touted by publications and Holocaust deniers as an "expert," Mr. Leuchter's own testimony at the Zündel trial made it clear that he was neither an expert nor a credible witness.
(Bron: Zundel proces)

Quote:

An article in the Washington Post sheds additional light upon Leuchter's legal problems, and his status as an engineer:

BOSTON, June 17 - Fred A. Leuchter Jr., a self-styled expert in the machinery of death who parlayed his reputation as a builder of killing equipment into a second career as a proponent of "Holocaust revisionism," has admitted that he is not an engineer.

Made in a consent decree filed with a Massachusetts court last week, his admission should deal a blow to the movement holding that the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews and others during World War II was a hoax or an exaggeration, according to experts in the field.

Leuchter, 48, of suburban Malden, was to face trial later this month on charges of practicing engineering without a license, a violation of Massachusetts law. But on June 11, he signed a consent agreement with the board that licenses engineers.

In it, Leuchter acknowledged that, "I am not and have never been registered as a professional engineer" and that he nevertheless had represented himself as an engineer in dealings with various states that use the death penalty and to which he supplied equipment or advice.

The agreement also requires Leuchter to stop disseminating reports in which he purports to be an engineer, most significantly a document known as the "Leuchter Report."

That report, widely circulated by revisionists, asserts that gas chambers at Nazi concentration camps in Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek could not have been used for mass killings because they were not big enough nor well ventilated or sealed. The assertion is based largely on chemical analysis of materials scraped surreptitiously from walls of those chambers by Leuchter during a visit to Poland in February 1988.

Sally Greenberg, an attorney with the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith in Boston, which was instrumental in bringing Leuchter to the attention of Massachusetts authorities, welcomed the settlement.

"It's a blow to Holocaust revisionism because he has been the guru of the revisionists," she said. "Now, he has as much as admitted that he is not qualified as an engineer to comment on the 'myth' of the Holocaust. It's essentially an admission that he's the charlatan and phony that we always knew he was." ("Holocaust Revisionist Admits He Is Not Engineer." The Washington Post. Get pub/people/l/leuchter.fred/washington-post.0691 for the complete (text.)

"It's a blow to Holocaust revisionism because he has been the guru of the revisionists," she said. "Now, he has as much as admitted that he is not qualified as an engineer to comment on the 'myth' of the Holocaust. It's essentially an admission that he's the charlatan and phony that we always knew he was."

…fortunately it is precisely the one 'gas chamber' in which the largest number of people was allegedly killed by poison gas during the Third Reich which has remained almost entirely intact: morgue 1 of crematorium II' Germar Rudolf

Germar Rudolf found that the Leuchter Report 'embedded the thorn of doubt in my heart' while he was a PhD chemist at the prestigious Max Plank Institute. In 1991 he visited Auschwitz and took 24 samples, analyzed by the Fresenius Institute using a comparable procedure. He was later criticized for having used the Max Plank Institute notepaper for having asked them to do this, without explaining where they had been taken from. Both Leuchter and Rudolf used their professional position to request the chemical analysis, and both had their professional existence terminated by that act.

Although Rudolf's sample-taking was photographed, he was criticized for not having had enough by way of witnesses checking his sample-taking and how the containers were labeled for his thirty-odd samples. Both Leuchter and Rudolf took their samples without having obtained permission - which assuredly would not have been given, had they asked. The samples were boiled for an hour with hydrochloric acid to drive out the cyanide gas, collected by absorption with caustic potash, then assayed photometrically.

?The method gave cyanide levels down to 0.1 - 0.2 ppm in the mortar, obtaining measurable values for almost all of his samples, despite which Rudolf remained doubtful over the value and reproducibility of results below several parts per million
He sampled extensively both from the inside and outside of the blue-stained DCs at Birkenau, where his grouped results were:

This indicates that the cyanide gas was able to penetrate right through the brick walls, and would not merely have been adsorbed onto the surface; and suggests that weathering over half a century has not greatly affected the cyanide concentrations. This data has a central importance, because Leuchter had only managed to take one single sample of de-lousing chamber wall.

The 'Control' samples of Germar Rudolf

Rudolf only took three samples from the AHGC walls (from what is called the Krema-II morgue), which was the weakness of his survey. Their wide divergences (7.2, 0.6 and 6.7 ppm) give little idea of this key parameter!". He took more samples from 'controls' - i.e., rooms where no-one had alleged that systematic cyanide gassing had taken place. His 'control' group is here subdivided into samples taken from the mortar between the bricks, and the rest.

This indicates a significant elevation of residual cyanide in the AHGCs.

The Ball Report 1993

It is hard to obtain copies of this Report, or to gain details of where the chemical analysis was performed'". J.C. Ball has a degree in geology, and worked as a mineral exploration geologist. Given the intensity of criticism to which anyone publishing in this area is exposed, one should perhaps refrain from criticism on this matter. Its six samples were:

Table 3: Mean values of the cyanide measurements found by John Ball, 1993
From a DC 3000 ppm (n=2)

The manager of Auschwitz Mr Piper approached Dr Jan Markiewicz of the Jan Sehn Institute of Forensic Research at Cracow as to whether they would check over the residual cyanide levels, in the wake of the Leuchter Report. On 20 Feb 1990 Dr. Wojciech Gubala arrived and removed 22 samples, including two control samples. The team then decided that they would like to follow this up with a further study before publishing any results.

This survey, published in 1994, differed from those of Leuchter and Rudolf in that it only looked at soluble cyanide in the brickwork. Critics objected that it was precisely the soluble component of cyanide which one would not expect to provide a memory of the past, because it would clearly be affected by weathering. Their reason for using such a method, was apparently that they did not want to get involved in debates over Prussian Blue formation: their approach 'excludes the possibility of the decomposition of the relatively permanent Prussian blue, whose origin is unclear in many parts of the structures under investigation,' and therefore 'The real level of total cyanide compounds could therefore be higher than shown by our analysis.' The samples were put in 10% sulphuric acid for 24 hours, thereby driving off the cyanide as before, except that cyanide bonded to iron was not liberated by the Polish method - the point of which has not been clear to a lot of people.

The soluble or non-bonded cyanide thereby measured was only present in low concentrations measured in parts per billion rather than parts per million. How were they able to attain this accuracy in measurement unattainable either by Alpha Analytical laboratories or the Fesenius Institute? The method they referenced for this analysis had been published in 1947, and could one expect this to attain these much higher levels of accuracy? From three 'gas chambers' they found:

These samples averaged 90 parts per billion. The Polish group claimed that their method could measure down to 2-3 parts per billion. For their 'control' they took eight samples from three different residential blocks, and thereby obtained (or at least published) consistently zero values - i.e., zero parts per billion! How impressive to have discovered this ultra-sensitive method. As 'holocaust' chemist Dr Richard Green explained, 'The IFFR used a much more sensitive method. Their sensitivity was 3-4/!g/kg, i.e., 300 times more sensitive.' If that method published in 1947 had such astounding accuracy, then why did subsequent chemists fail to use it?

This investigation gave DC wall-concentrations in its Table 4, finding a several-fold elevation in cyanide levels there. Eight values for 'concentrations of cyanide ions in samples collected in the facilities for the fumigation of prisoners clothes, (Birkenau BathHouse Camp BI-A)' gave a mean value of273 ppb, thrice that of the 'Kremas.' Their conclusion omitted comment upon this highly significant elevation.

This paper has been much cited by pro-Holocaust sources, as refuting the Leuchter Report, by demonstrating that the AHGCs ('Kremas') had raised cyanide as compared to 'controls.' The paper was entitled, 'A study of the cyanide compound contents in the walls of the gas chambers in the former Auschwitz and Birkenau concentration camps'.

It thus used a Nuremberg-type terminology, where 'gas chamber' simply meant a place for human extermination. They could hardly have done otherwise, because doubt over 'the Holocaust' is a crime in Poland. The DCs were alluded to as 'Facilities For the Fumigation of Prisoners' Clothes.'

The Polish team went to a lot of trouble, with some sixty measurements mostly measured thrice, and was the only study which obtained permission to take the samples. It omitted two things in its conclusions: any allusion to the Birkenau DC ('facilities for the fumigation of prisoners' clothes') where it had found greatly-elevated cyanide levels over the AHGCs; and, the insoluble cyanide that was bound to iron. In regard to both of these it cited the Prussian blue ferric ferrocyanide complex, leaving open the possibility that is had some quite extraneous source and was therefore to be avoided.

The 1947 method used by Markiewicz et. al. was given by Joseph Epstein and published in a US chemistry journal." It was a procedure whose limit of accuracy was given as 0.2 micrograms per ml. To expel the cyanide from brickwork and then dissolve it into a solution suitable for measuring it, involves an order-of-magnitude dilution at least, so that one would not expect to obtain an accuracy less then one ppm in the brickwork, using this method. Any claim that this decades-old titration and colorimetric method using thiocyanate can find parts per billion has to be spurious.

IV. Desjardin analyses Leuchter

Dan Desjardins, after carefully retracing the steps of Leuchter on a 1996 visit to Auschwitz'", and watching the film that had been made of Leuchter's sampling'", divided the samples 1-31 into two groups: those which had been exposed and open to the elements over the decades (n=20), and those which were more protected in sheltered, unexposed locations: 'Leuchter's samples, numbered 25 through 31, extracted from Crematorium I... taken from a facility which was not destroyed and has remained intact since the end of the war, were not exposed to the elements. The same might be said for samples 4, 5 and 6 taken from Crematorium II. Leuchter removed these samples from a pillar, wall and ceiling which, though accessible, were nevertheless well protected against wind, rain and sun.'

Less then half (14 out of 35) of Leuchter's samples had measurable levels of cyanide in them, where measurable means above one part per million. We have here assigned an arbitrary value of 0.5 ppm for those too low to measure, i.e below 1 ppm. This gave:

The 'exposed' group scored 30% lower than the sheltered group, a result which lacks statistical significance (t=0.8). This data could suggest that one-third of the cyanide had leeched out from the exposed walls, over sixty years; if indeed they had all at one historic period been exposed to hydrogen cyanide.

Mr Desjardins further subdivided the Leuchter samples into those taken from AHGC walls, and those which were 'controls' i.e taken from barracks, etc. The definition of the 'control' concept is critical here, and means brickwork where no one has been concerned to allege that is was part of a room where systematic cyanide gassing took place whether of humans or of mattresses.

Leuchter surmised that the 'control' sample had been exposed at some stage to a single fumigation by cyanide gas, by way of cleaning out any lice from cracks etc.

This result too lacks statistical significance, i.e. Leuchter's sample provides no evidence for human 'gas chambers' having raised residual cyanide levels above those of 'controls.' The data suggests that the AHGCs did not ever function as lethal gas chambers.

These two sets of data (using Desjardins' divisions) covary somewhat, in that if we increase the 'exposed' samples by say 25%, to allow for leeching out of their cyanide over the decades, then the difference between the AHGC and 'control' groups disappears altogether. (As Mr Desjardins put it, five times as many of these [AHGC] samples came from locations protected from 40-years' exposure to wind and rain.') Mr Desjardins concluded, 'Fred Leuchter's broad sample gathering, despite flaws, establishes a reasonable basis for inferring that the presence of cyanide residue is due to benign rather than homicidal purposes.

Conclusions

1. One might expect that the accuracy of cyanide-ion assay would have increased substantially over the last couple of decades, but this is not the case: any reanalysis of the brickwork would face the same frustrating situation, where differences between AHGCs and controls hover right next to the lowest detectable levels.

2. The essential questions here reviewed may be best evaluated without arguments over whether or not Prussian blue coloration has formed. The latter involves a slow and complex sequence of reactions. We have here been primarily concerned with total cyanide in the brickwork.

3. Plaster on the wall-surface may tend to have a higher cyanide level than brick or mortar underneath it, and the ferric-ferrocyanide does decrease as a function of depth. Samples should therefore aim to have a comparable breadth-to-depth ratio.

4. The notion of a 'control' sample has developed from Rudolf's sampling and also from Mr. Desjardins evaluation of the Leuchter sample locations. This permitted an evaluation of whether measurements of authentic AHGC wall were significantly elevated over such. While there was a hint of this from Rudolf's sampling, and while further investigation might confirm this, overall no statistically significant elevation was evident.

5. The careful and extensive Polish data was analyzed using a 1947 US titration procedure, which gave no indication of reaching the parts per billion accuracy claimed by that study. If Marciewicz et. al chose to use a method which only analyzed 1 % or less of the cyanide, viz. the soluble component, for whatever reason, they should first have shown that their method was capable of detecting it.

6. Both the Leuchter and Rudolf surveys obtained a three order-of-magnitude differential between the walls of DC and AHGC buildings; the simplest explanation of which is that the former was used on a regular basis for cyanide fumigation while the latter was not.

7. The Leuchter data showed that there was no great diminution of cyanide levels due to weathering over half a century, and this accords with what is known about the insolubility and permanence of the ferric-ferrocyanide complex. The residual cyanide within those walls may therefore offer the most reliable memory which the human race now has, concerning what happened historically in German 'gas chambers.'
(Bron:The Walls of Auschwitz)